Ban on Interstate handgun transfers ruled unconstitutional

Thanks, Frank, for providing the link to Branca's very informative article.

Analyzing the case on both a facial and as applied basis, and then using strict and intermediate scrutiny in both instances, shows a lot of determination on the judge's part to not be side-stepped or second-guessed on appeal. I did not catch the four-way analysis in my initially hurried and piecemeal reading of the ruling.
 
I think the plaintiffs very purposely chose the 5th Circuit for this case, it is seen as very pro-2nd Amendment and once a favorable trial court ruling is obtained odds are very good it will be upheld by the appeals court. And of course if that happens they will appeal to the SCOTUS which is where we all want it.
 
Question Frank, that I'm not clear on.

The government is enjoined from enforcing X, Y, and Z.

You've said earlier it only applies to the Hanson's buying from Mance.

Why would the government appeal it? Right now, it's very limited. If they appeal and lose, then it's a thing.

Was the decision about the Army Corps of Engineers land from a higher court? i.e Circuit instead of District? That was a Federal court telling a Federal Agency so it went nationwide even though it was just from one circuit wasn't it?
 
JimDandy said:
...The government is enjoined from enforcing X, Y, and Z.

You've said earlier it only applies to the Hanson's buying from Mance.
...
Click to expand...
I was rushing around and was, I'm afraid, imprecise. The reasoning of the decision applies only to this case. The injunction will apply nationwide, because it blocks any enforcement as unconstitutional on their face of specific federal statutes and regulations.

JimDandy said:
...Why would the government appeal it? Right now, it's very limited....
Click to expand...
Because it blocks any enforcement as unconstitutional on their face of specific federal statutes and regulations. I can't see how the government would allow that to stand without appellate review, especially since the affected statutes are pretty much the cornerstone of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

JimDandy said:
...Was the decision about the Army Corps of Engineers land from a higher court? i.e Circuit instead of District? That was a Federal court telling a Federal Agency so it went nationwide even though it was just from one circuit wasn't it?
Click to expand...
It's quite possible that will also have national effect. Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (United States District Court, D. Idaho, 990 F.Supp.2d 1082 (2014)) was discussed on this board here, and it was suggested in that thread that the injunction would apply to all ACE administered public lands.

I don't know if the ACE has appealed. They might not. The ACE might not see this as that significant, since federal legislation already required that the National Park Service iallow the carrying of firearms in national parks as permitted by the laws of the State in which land is located.
 
Thanks, the second two questions became moot as soon as you said
The injunction will apply nationwide,
Click to expand...

At that point the rest of my confusion went away, as then it's already a big deal, not limited to the Hansons like I initially understood. :)
 
We also are still running into the giant mess that is the legal status of Washington D.C. as not-a-state. Which is probably why Gura keeps using DC residents, with an eye towards incorporation after it's settled Federally. I'm curious if the Government will respond by claiming DC residents are not residents of a state, and therefore can't buy an out of state long gun either.
Click to expand...

DC residents can of course right now buy out of state long guns. I have bought them in Md and Va. They don't need to go through DC FLL like handguns do.

I have had neither Dick's in Va or Bass Pro in Md bat an eye. You do have to go twice. Once trip to purchase it, get them to fill out the DC form with serial number, and once ten days later to pick it up.

With handguns one is stuck with the $125 premium for the DC FLL.
 
Interestingly, the trial court denied the motion for stay back on February 26, 2015. I just spotted that on PACER, and hadn't realized it before, or maybe hadn't remembered. Oral arguments were held in January of 2016, and briefs, both from parties and amici have been filed, as well as supplemental authorities. Last docket activity was a response to supplemental authority on may 19, 2016.

armedleo said:
Does the decision not become case law? And can it not be cited to as precedent should a similar lawsuit arise?
Click to expand...
It's kind of in limbo. Yes, the decision out of the Northern District of Texas could technically be cited in an attempt to persuade a judge, but it's not binding on anybody, and it's up on appeal. So it's not worth much (if anything) as caselaw. The lawyer citing would kind of be saying, "Well, judge, there's this decision out there. It's not final, and it's up on appeal. But there is at least one judge in the federal judiciary who agrees with me, and this is the best support I've got." (Because why would you bring anything less than the best you've got?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top